5 ms·

I like to read these kinds of prospective acronyms, because sometimes they provide new perspectives or leverage points that other, existing acronyms don't. And

I like to read these kinds of prospective acronyms, because sometimes they provide new perspectives or leverage points that other, existing acronyms don't. And they are easier to remember than, say, an essay. DRY, for example, is instantly transferable to a bunch of other life practices and disciplines; people from dry cleaning to graphic design will hear about it and go "oh my god, I'm not really DRY but I totally could be" so it was really neat to discover. In the case of CRISP, the "Correct" criterion somehow seems far less tractable to me than the other terms, and even less tractable than "Clean" for some reason. To me it reads like a hint at subjective, self-contained logic. That's great, insofar it's instrumental to how code either works or doesn't. But "Correct" is also kind of getting negative connotations these days, for a lot of reasons. (Imagine also, receiving "your code could be more DRY" feedback, vs. "your code could be more CRISP," wherein you look up the latter and think, "oh right, my code could be more _correct_!") And then the author even takes the argument in the ad-infinitum direction by referring to e.g. what _else_ isn't correct here? My tests? My purpose? My gut biome? (Ok not the last one). But there's a reason why Correctness is a thing in science, and a big part of that is scope constraint. Maybe "Cogent" is more fitting in such a case? It has less of an absolutist ring to it. It expresses a bar to measure up to, with more of a qualitative, less-checkboxy feel. I would also guess that a word like "Contractual" or "Compliant" would provide more leverage toward the same outcome. But those are already used around code in other ways, I guess... Anyway, it's interesting to think about, because these little acronyms can really help when applied, if they reveal some traction that's been missing. (This also made me wonder...why is one of the world's most popular crispy rice chocolate bars called a Crunch bar, and not a CRISP bar. Hmm)

Bjartr 3y ago
> how code either works or doesn't. That's all "correct" is trying to mean here. As a synonym for "working". Can you share a bit more on the negative connotations of "correct"? Nothing comes to mind for me.
- themodelplumber 3y ago
  That's all? Good argument for RISP then. I have to ask, what's the point of telling coders--presumably experienced ones if they are familiar with the concept of clean code--to try to get their code to work? "Have you tried getting it working?" (I really think the author must mean more than that, given the segue into testing one's tests? Why do that, if the thing is working? Or does one assume at all times, forever, that it's broken? That's not really mentioned) So IMO the energy that goes into justifying the word probably isn't worth the carnival ride to the exciting world of status quo, so to speak. "Correct" as a word has also had quite a social shadow side ever since Political Correctness became a thing at the very least. What it amounts to is de facto social resistance to the topic of whether one's creation is correct. These days it's even more encumbered by the ongoing reconciliation dialog regarding "incorrect or just different?" E.g. divergence from pack or narrative in various ways being not so bad a thing by default anymore, especially insofar as the resulting support structure makes new room for new ideas that move past the worst parts of who we all used to be. But that's just one aspect; telling a coder to check that their code is correct is also an awkward way to communicate on its face, especially if that's the first answer to "how can this model help me to be a better coder" for example. It's going to drop the author into literal mansplain territory for huge swaths of audience. It's like first principles, for people who don't know what code is meant to accomplish. Just some ideas though. So, where's the value of having this word in there? Does the model really need the word at all? If so, why?
  - Bjartr 3y ago
    > to try to get their code to work? Because some people, even experienced coders, can get caught up caring about performance first or elegance first instead of getting something working correctly first. > "Correct" as a word has also had quite a social shadow side ever since Political Correctness became a thing at the very least. Interesting, I've never noticed that. When going back to the 90's I can't recall a time where "Correct", has carried any kind of extra baggage like that. We must have had some very different experiences. >These days it's even more encumbered by the ongoing reconciliation... Okay, you've actually lost me, I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here or what it has to do with programming or software development. >It's like first principles Anything reduced to an acronym in a context like this is going to be about fundamentals, not some nuanced deep dive. They're rules of thumb, not a comprehensive guide >how can this model help me to be a better coder Maybe it can't help you, and that's okay if others find it useful. >Does the model really need the word at all? If so, why? If it had no value here, that would mean people write working code by default. The proven value of having tests (specific approaches aside) to demonstrate to demonstrate the code is working means this is not the case. But there's a spectrum of effort to be had here, I can not really think about it and hope things work out because I'm experienced and how dare you imply the code I wrote isn't perfect, or I can spend effort thinking critically about my work, the code, the task, the desired outcome as written, and the desired outcome as intended. Having "correct" here is saying you should err on the side of the latter rather than the former. It's not an attack or a slight, is just some advice. Advice isn't universal and where you are in your journey as a programmer may mean this advice isn't valuable to you right now, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally bereft of value.

Bjartr 3y ago

> how code either works or doesn't. That's all "correct" is trying to mean here. As a synonym for "working". Can you share a bit more on the negative connotations of "correct"? Nothing comes to mind for me.

themodelplumber 3y ago
That's all? Good argument for RISP then. I have to ask, what's the point of telling coders--presumably experienced ones if they are familiar with the concept of clean code--to try to get their code to work? "Have you tried getting it working?" (I really think the author must mean more than that, given the segue into testing one's tests? Why do that, if the thing is working? Or does one assume at all times, forever, that it's broken? That's not really mentioned) So IMO the energy that goes into justifying the word probably isn't worth the carnival ride to the exciting world of status quo, so to speak. "Correct" as a word has also had quite a social shadow side ever since Political Correctness became a thing at the very least. What it amounts to is de facto social resistance to the topic of whether one's creation is correct. These days it's even more encumbered by the ongoing reconciliation dialog regarding "incorrect or just different?" E.g. divergence from pack or narrative in various ways being not so bad a thing by default anymore, especially insofar as the resulting support structure makes new room for new ideas that move past the worst parts of who we all used to be. But that's just one aspect; telling a coder to check that their code is correct is also an awkward way to communicate on its face, especially if that's the first answer to "how can this model help me to be a better coder" for example. It's going to drop the author into literal mansplain territory for huge swaths of audience. It's like first principles, for people who don't know what code is meant to accomplish. Just some ideas though. So, where's the value of having this word in there? Does the model really need the word at all? If so, why?
- Bjartr 3y ago
  > to try to get their code to work? Because some people, even experienced coders, can get caught up caring about performance first or elegance first instead of getting something working correctly first. > "Correct" as a word has also had quite a social shadow side ever since Political Correctness became a thing at the very least. Interesting, I've never noticed that. When going back to the 90's I can't recall a time where "Correct", has carried any kind of extra baggage like that. We must have had some very different experiences. >These days it's even more encumbered by the ongoing reconciliation... Okay, you've actually lost me, I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to say here or what it has to do with programming or software development. >It's like first principles Anything reduced to an acronym in a context like this is going to be about fundamentals, not some nuanced deep dive. They're rules of thumb, not a comprehensive guide >how can this model help me to be a better coder Maybe it can't help you, and that's okay if others find it useful. >Does the model really need the word at all? If so, why? If it had no value here, that would mean people write working code by default. The proven value of having tests (specific approaches aside) to demonstrate to demonstrate the code is working means this is not the case. But there's a spectrum of effort to be had here, I can not really think about it and hope things work out because I'm experienced and how dare you imply the code I wrote isn't perfect, or I can spend effort thinking critically about my work, the code, the task, the desired outcome as written, and the desired outcome as intended. Having "correct" here is saying you should err on the side of the latter rather than the former. It's not an attack or a slight, is just some advice. Advice isn't universal and where you are in your journey as a programmer may mean this advice isn't valuable to you right now, but that doesn't mean it's fundamentally bereft of value.